Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 153–165 | Cite as

Teaching-for-Learning (TFL): A Model for Faculty to Advance Student Learning

  • Clifton F. Conrad
  • Jason Johnson
  • Divya Malik Gupta
Article

Abstract

In light of the widespread recognition of the enduring challenge of enhancing the learning of all students—including a growing number of students representing diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds—there has been an explosion of literature on teaching, learning, and assessment in higher education. Notwithstanding scores of promising new ideas, individual faculty in higher education need a dynamic and inclusive model to help them engage in a systematic and continuous process of exploring and testing various teaching and assessment practices to ensure the learning of their students. This paper introduces a model—Teaching-for-Learning (TFL)—developed to meet this need.

Key words

teaching learning assessment 

References

  1. Anderson, M. B. (1999). In progress: Reports of new approaches in medical education. Academic Medicine, 74, 561–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance intellectual development (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13–25.Google Scholar
  6. Bastick, T. (2001, August). Relationships between in-course alignment indicators and post-course criteria of quality teaching and learning in higher education. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Fribourg, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  7. Beaman, R. (1998). The unquiet...even loud, andragogy! Alternative assessment for adult learners. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.Google Scholar
  9. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  10. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabedo-Timmons, G. (2002). Teaching Spanish subject matters to college students in the USA. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED468881)Google Scholar
  12. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28, 15–25.Google Scholar
  13. Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Terenzini, P. T. (2000). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 173–191.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., & Spiegel, S. A. (1995). So you want to do action research? Retrieved October 29, 2004, from Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) website: http://www.enc.org/professional/learn/research/journal/science/document.shtm?input=ENC-002432-2432.
  15. Cornesky, R. (1993). The quality professor: Implementing TQM in the classroom. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Cross, K. P. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60, 402–407.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, K. P. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning, and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systematic design of instruction. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glassick, C., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: A special report on faculty evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen, E. J. (1998). Creating teachable moments...and making them last. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harter, S. (2006). The challenge of framing a problem: What is your burning question? In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook on research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 331–348). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  26. Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  27. Huber, M. T. (2005). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic careers. Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  28. Huber, M., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  30. Hutchings, P. (Ed.) (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  31. Hutchings, P. (2002). Ethics of inquiry: Issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  32. Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. E. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15.Google Scholar
  33. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R., & Brew, A. (2002). Re-shaping higher education: Linking teaching and research. London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, M. C., & Malinowski, J. C. (2001). Navigating the active learning swamp: Creating an inviting environment for learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 172–177.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, E. A. (2002). Myths about assessing the impact of problem-based learning on students. Journal of General Education, 51, 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S., & Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in higher education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirk, R. E. (2002, August). Teaching introductory statistics: Some things I have learned. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  38. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. Review of Higher Education, 28, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewthwaite, B. J., & Dunham, H. P. (1999, February). Enriching teaching scholarship through learning styles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Marion, R., & Zeichner, K. (2001). Practitioner resource guide for action research. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED472207)Google Scholar
  42. McCann, L. I., Perlman, B., & De Both, T. L. (2001). Instructor evaluations of introductory psychology teaching techniques. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 274–276.Google Scholar
  43. McDaniel, E. A., & Colarulli, G. C. (1997). Collaborative teaching in the face of productivity concerns: The dispersed team model. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Myers, C. B., & Myers, S. M. (2007). Assessing assessment: The effects of two exam formats on course achievement and evaluation. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Boston, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  46. Palaskas, T. A. (2002). Model for selecting technology mediated teaching strategies. Educational Technology, 42(6), 49–54Google Scholar
  47. Palmer, P. J. (1990). Good teaching: A matter of living the mystery. Change, 22(1), 11–16. January.Google Scholar
  48. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Quarstein, V. A., & Peterson, P. A. (2001). Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal-criterion approach. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rogers, G., Finley, D., & Kline, T. (2001). Understanding individual differences in university undergraduates: A learner needs segmentation approach. Innovative Higher Education, 25, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. London, England: Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  52. Scovic, S. P. (1983, April). What are “alternative learning approaches” and do they work? Paper presented at the National School Boards Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How instructors can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning (pp. 5–12). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, R. A. (2001). Formative evaluation and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In C. Knapper & P. Cranton (Eds.), Fresh approaches to the evaluation of teaching (pp. 51–62). New directions for teaching and learning, vol. 88. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  55. Wright, M. (2005). Always at odds? Congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a research university. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clifton F. Conrad
    • 1
  • Jason Johnson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Divya Malik Gupta
    • 4
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership and Policy AnalysisUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Maharaja Sayajirao University in GujaratBarodaIndia

Personalised recommendations